Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life

  • Review Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews the international adaptation and use of generic health quality of life measures over the last several years, including the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36 (MOS SF-36), the EuroQol, and Dartmouth COOP Charts. International work with disease or condition specific HRQL measures is exemplified with the European Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ), and the Spitzer Quality of Life (QL) Index. Progress towards cross national measurement equivalence in HRQL measures reported in the literature has been uneven. Results show that the development of language-adapted versions of HRQL measures to date have mostly concerned translation issues, within the context of independently conducted studies. Substantially less focus has been placed on psychometric equivalence across language versions necessary for coordinated international studies, such as multi-national clinical trials. However, this picture is rapidly changing with recent projects underway to develop and refine new or existing HRQL measures. Overall, the lack of prominent differences found between countries in ranking of health states in major HRQL measures supports the feasibility of developing internationally applicable HRQL instruments. Recommendations are made for additional data needed to better ascertain the degree of measurement equivalence developed in the various versions of each instrument reviewed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. The Nottingham Health Profile User's Manual, 1981.

  2. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual foundation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv 1976; 6: 393–415.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. J Chron Dis 1981; 34: 585–597.

    Google Scholar 

  4. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  5. WHOQOL Group. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. A 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson E, Wasson J, Kirk J, et al. Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP chart method and preliminary findings. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 55S-63S.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Spilker B, Molinek FR, Johnston KA, et al. Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 1990; 28(suppl 12): DS1-DS77.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Spilker B, Simpson R, Tilson H. Quality of life bibliography and indexes: 1991 update. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1992; 6: 205–266.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, Ahmedzai S. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Recent Results in Cancer Res 1988; 111: 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coscarelli-Shag CA, Heinrich RL. Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology 1990; 4: 135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. The functional living index-cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berzon et al. 1993.

  14. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett M. Measures of Need and Outcome for Primary Health Care. New York: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, et al. (Eds.) Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Washington, DC: Le Jacq Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martini CJM, McDowell I. Health status: patient and physician judgements. Health Ser Res 1976, Winter: 508–515.

  18. McKenna SP, Hunt SM, McEwen J. Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons. Int J Epidemiol 1981; 10: 93–97.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Torgerson WS. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jenkinson C. Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure. Soc Sci & Med 1991; 32: 1413–1416.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J. A quantitative approach to perceived health. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980; 34: 281–285.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, et al. Subjective health status of patients with peripheral vascular disease. Practitioner 1982; 226: 133–136.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McKenna SP, Hunt SM, McEwen J, et al. Changes in perceived health of patients recovering from fractures. Public Health 1984; 98: 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Argyle M. The Nottingham Health Profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Soc Sci Med 1988; 27: 1411–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Permanyer-Miralda G, Alonso J, Anto JM, et al. Comparison of perceived health status and conventional functional evaluation in stable patients with coronary heart disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 779–786.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dimenas E, Wiklund I, Dahlof C, et al. Differences in the subjective well-being and symptoms of normotensives, borderline hypertensives and hypertensives. J Hypertension 1989; 7: 885–890.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP, et al. Subjective health assessments and the perceived outcome of minor surgery. J Psychosom Res 1984; 28: 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mays N. Relative costs and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and ureteric stones. Soc Sci & Med 1991; 32: 1401–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wallender M, Palmer L. A monitoring system for adverse drug experiences in a pharmaceutical company: the integration of pre- and post-marketing data. Drug Information J 1986; 20: 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, Williams J. Reliability of a population survey tool for measuring perceived health problems: a study of patients with osteoarthrosis. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1981; 35: 185–188.

    Google Scholar 

  31. O'Brien BJ, Banner NR, Gibson S, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile as a measure of quality of life following heart and lung transplantation. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1988; 42: 232–234.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McKenna SP, Hunt SM, McEwen J, et al. Changes in the perceived health of patients recovering from fractures. Public Health 1984; 98: 97.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP, et al. Subjective health assessments and the perceived outcome of minor surgery. J Psychom Res 1984; 28: 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  34. MOSI.

  35. Kind P, Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham Health Profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists. Soc Sci Med 1987; 25: 905–910.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Coop N, Wilkin.

  37. Hunt SM. Nottingham Health Profile. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, et al., eds. Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Le Jacq Press, 1984.

  38. Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bucquet D, Condor S, Ritchie K. The French version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a comparison of item weights with those of the source version. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 809–835.

    Google Scholar 

  40. van Schayck CP, Rutten-van Molken MP, van Dooslaer EK, et al. Two-year bronchodilator treatment in patients with mild airflow obstruction. Chest 1992; 102: 1384–1391.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring Health Status 1st edn. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Alonso J, Auto J, Moreno C. Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Pub Health 1990; 80: 704–708.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Alonso J, Anto J, Gonzalez M, et al. Measurement of general health status of non-oxygen dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Med Care 1992; 30 (suppl): MS125-MS135.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wiklund I, Romanus B, Hunt S. Self-assessed disability in patients with arthrosis of the hip joint. Int Disabil Studies 1988; 10: 159–163.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wiklund I, Karlberg J. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials: selecting quality of life measures. Controlled Clinical Trials 1991; 12: 2045–2165.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hunt SM, Wiklund I. Cross-cultural variation in the weighting of health statements: a comparision of English and Swedish valuations. Health Policy 1987; 8: 227–235.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ringsberg KC, Wiklund I, Wilhelmsen L. Education of adult patients at an ‘asthma school’: effects on quality of life, knowledge and need for nursing. Eur Respir J 1990; 3: 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wiklund I. The Nottingham Health Profile — a measure of health-related quality of life. Scand J Prim Health Care 1990; Suppl 1: 15–18.

  49. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rothman M, Hedrick S, Invi T. The Sickness Impact Profile as a measure of the health status of noncognitively impaired nursing home residents. Med Care 1989; 27: 5157–5167.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Finlay AY, Khan GK, Luscombe D, et al. Validation of the Sickness Impact Profile and Psoriasis Disability Index in psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123: 751–756.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jones P, Baveystock C, Littlejohns P. Relationships between general health measured with the Sickness Impact Profile and respiratory symptoms, physiological measures and mood in patients with chronic airflow limitation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989; 140: 1538–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Deyo R, Invi T, Lenninger J, et al. Measuring functional outcomes in chronic disease: a comparison of traditional scales and a self-administered health status questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 1983; 21: 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pollard WE, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: reliability of a health status measure. Med Care 1976; 14: 146–155.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sano M, Stern Y, Marder K, et al. A controlled trial of Piracetam in intellectually impaired patients with Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 1990; 5: 230–234.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rothman M, Hedrick S, Inui T. The Sickness Impact Profile as a measure of health status of noncognitively impaired nursing home residents. Med Care 1989; 27: S157-S167.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28: 632–642.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bergner M. 1985.

  59. Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D et al. The use of generic and specific quality of life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with erythropoietin. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 1685–1795.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tandon PK, Stander H, Schwartz R. Analysis of quality of life data from a randomized, placebo controlled heart-failure trial. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 955–962.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res 1984; 19: 277–289.

    Google Scholar 

  62. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, et al. Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39: 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Read J, Quinn R, Hoefer M. Measuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(suppl 1): 7S-21S.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zedlow P, Pavlou M. Physical and psychological functioning in multiple sclerosis: descriptions, correlations and a tentative typology. Br J Med Psychol 1988; 61: 185–195.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Linzer M, Pontinen M, Gold D, et al. Impairment of physical and psychological function in recurrent syncope. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 1037–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  66. DeBruin AF, De Witte LP, Diederiks JP. Sickness Impact Profile: the state of the art of a generic functional status measure. Soc Sci Med 1992; 8: 1003–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Jette AM. Health status indicators: their utility in chronic-disease evaluation research. J Chron Dis 1980; 33: 567–579.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Patrick DL. Standardization of comparative health status measures: using scales developed in America in an English speaking country. Third Health Survey Research Methods Biennial Conference 1976.

  69. Patrick D, Sittampalam Y, Sommerville S, et al. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. AJPH 1985; 75: 1402–1407.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Charlton JR, Patrick DL, Peach H. Use of multivariate measures of disability in health surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health 1983; 37: 296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Chwalow AJ, Lurie A, Bean K, et al. A French version of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP): stages in the cross cultural validation of a generic quality of life scale. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1992; 6: 319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Jacobs HM. Health status measurement in family medicine research: the Sickness Impact Profile and its application in a follow-up study in patients with non-specific abdominal complaints. Utrecht; University of Utrecht Press, 1993: 1–233.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Schuling J, Greidanus J, Meyboom-De Jong B. Measuring functional status of stroke patients with the Sickness Impact Profile. Disabil Rehab 1993; 15: 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nydevik I, Hulter Asberg K. Sickness impact after stroke: a 3-year follow-up. Scand J Prim Care 1992; 10: 284–289.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hulsebos RG, Beltman F, Miranda D, et al. Measuring quality of life with the Sickness Impact Profile: a pilot study. Intensive Care Med 1991; 17: 285–288.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Hunskaar S, Vinsnes A. The quality of life in women with urinary incontinence as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 378–382.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Norton C. The effects of urinary incontinence in women. Int Rehab Med 1982; 4: 9.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sullivan M, Ahlmen M, Bjelle A. Health status assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: 1. Further work on the validity of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Rheumatol 1990; 17: 439–447.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Sullivan M, Ahlmen M, Archenholtz B, et al. Measuring health in rheumatic disorders by means of a Swedish version of the Sickness Impact Profile: results from a population study. Scand J Rheumatol 1986; 15: 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ahlmen EM, Bengtsson CB, Sullivan M, et al. A comparison of overall health between patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a population with and without rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1990; 19: 413–421.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Deyo R. Pitfalls in measuring the health status of Mexican Americans: comparative validity of the English and Spanish Sickness Impact Profile. Am J Pub Health 1984; 74: 569–573.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. Health Economics 1993: 1–23.

  83. Stewart A, Hays R, Ware J. The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD, Davies AR. Developing and testing the MOS 20-item short-form health survey: a general population application. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992: 277–290.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ware J, Sherbourne CA, Davies AR, et al. A short-form general health survey. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation (pub. P-7444), 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Stewart AL, Ware JE (Eds). Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach, Durham NC: Duke University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  87. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Update: July 1992. The MOS Trust, Inc., 1992.

  88. Ware J, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  89. McHorney CA, Ware JEJr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kurtin PS, Davies AR, Meyer KB, et al. Patient-based health status measurements in outpatient dialysis: early experiences in developing an outcomes assessment program. Med Care 1992; 30(Suppl 5): MS136-MS149.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Nerenz D, Repasky D, Whitehouse F, et al. Ongoing assessment of health status in patients with diabetes mellitus. Med Care 1992; 30: MS112-MS124.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kantz M, Harris W, Leguitsky K, et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992; 30: MS240-MS252.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Lansky D, Butler B, Waller F. Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to ‘outcomes management’. Med Care 1992; 30: M557-M573.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Wachtel T, Piette J, Mor V, et al. Quality of life in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection: measurement by the medical outcomes study instrument. Ann of Inter Med 1992; 116: 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Wu AW, Rubin HR, Mathews WC, et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 1991; 29: 786–798.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ware J. Project summary: international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Unpublished document, 1991; 22 October.

  97. Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1992; 1: 349–351.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Garratt AM, Rutta DA, Abdalla MI, et al. The SF-36 health profile: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ 1993; 306: 1440–1444.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ware JE Jr. Translating health: the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Assessing health related quality of life measures in international clinical trials. Burroughs-Wellcome Inc. Proceedings of a Workshop (videotape). August 1992.

  100. Brooks R, Jendteg S, Lindgren B, et al. EuroQol: health related quality of life measurement. Results from the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Nord E. EuroQol: health related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones N, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: a new outcome measure for primary care. Br Med J 1992; 305: 160–164.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality Life Res 1993; 2: 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD, et al. The functional status of patients—how can it be measured in physicians' offices? Med Care 1990; 28: 1111–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD, et al. The COOP function charts: a system to measure patient function in physicians' offices. In: Lipkin MJr, ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 97–131.

    Google Scholar 

  106. McHorney CA, Ware JEJr, Rogers W, et al. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992; 30: MS253-MS265.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Landgraf JM, Nelson EC, Hays RD, et al. Assessing function: does it really make a difference? A preliminary evaluation of the acceptability and utility of the COOP function charts. In: Lipkin MJr, ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990: 150–165.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Coates AK, Wilkin D. Comparing the Nottingham health profile with the Dartmouth COOP charts. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 81–86.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Meyboom-de Jong B, Smith RJA. Studies with the Dartmouth COOP charts in general practice: comparison with the Nottingham health profile and the general health questionnaire. In: Lipkin MJr, ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 132–149.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Westbury RC. Use of the Dartmouth COOP charts in a calgary practice. In: Lipkin MJr, ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 166–181.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Shigemoto H. A trial of the Dartmouth COOP charts in Japan. In: Lipkin MJr, ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990: 181–187.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Landgraf JM, Nelson EC, Dartmouth COOP Primary Care Network. Summary of the WONCA/COOP international health assessment field trial. Australian Family Physician 1992: 21: 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Scholten JHG, Van Weel C. Manual for the use of the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment Charts/WONCA in measuring functional status in family practice. Part I. In: Scholten JH, Van Weel C, eds. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst 1992: 17–50.

    Google Scholar 

  114. van Weel C, Scholten JHG. Report of an international workshop of the WONCA Research and Classification Committee. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  115. van de Lisdonk EH, van Weel C. Cataract and functional status. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 70.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Schuling J, Meyboom-deJong B. Change in clinical status in patients with stroke. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 73.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Patterson WM. Peak expiratory flow rates and functional status in asthma. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 74.

    Google Scholar 

  118. van Weel C, Matteysen N, Wong Chung D, et al. Change in functional status following an asthma exacerbation. In: Scholten JHG, ed. Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice. Lelystad: Meditekst, 1992: 74.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality-of-life questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991; 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Kober B, Kuchler T, Kremer B, et al. A psychological support concept and quality of life research in a liver transplantation program: an interdisciplinary multicenter study. Psychother Psychosom 1990; 54: 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Jones E, Lund VJ, Howard DJ, et al. Quality of life of patients treated surgically for head and neck cancer. J Laryngol Otol 1992; 106: 238–242.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Geddes DM, Dones L, Hill E, et al. Quality of life during chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: assessment and use of a daily diary card in a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 1990; 26: 484–492.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC quality of life questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Psychometric validation of the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncologica 1992; 31: 311–321.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Bergman B, Sullivan M, Sorenson S. Quality of life during chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer. Acta Oncologica 1992; 31: 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Sigurdardottir V, Bolund C, Brandberg Y, et al. The impact of generalized malignant melanoma on quality of life evaluated by the EORTC questionnaire technique. Quality Life Res 1993; 2: 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Sprangers MAG, Cull A, Bjordal K, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing modules. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, et al. Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Gough IR, Furnival CM, Schilder L, et al. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983; 19: 1161–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Spitzer Quality-of-Life Index: its performance as a measure. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991: 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Troidl H, Kusche J, Vestwebber K-H, et al. Quality of life: an important endpoint both in surgical practice and research. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 523–528.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Tamburini M, Filiberti A, et al. Psychological aspects of testis cancer therapy; a prospective study. J Urology 1989; 142: 1487–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Mor V. Cancer patients' quality of life over the disease course: lessons from the real world. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 535–544.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Monahan ML. Quality of life of adults receiving chemotherapy: a comparison of instruments. Oncol Nurs Forum 1988; 15: 795–798.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Clark A, Fallowfield LF. Quality of life measures in patients with malignant disease. J Roy Soc Med 1986; 79: 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Morris JN, Sherwood S. Quality of life of cancer patients at different stages in the disease trajectory. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 545–553.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, The Bowman Gray School of Medicine, 27157, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    R. T. Anderson

  2. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    N. K. Aaronson

  3. Centre for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, UK

    D. Wilkin

Authors
  1. R. T. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. K. Aaronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Wilkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Preparation of this document was supported by a grant from the Burroughs Wellcome Foundation and by the Bowman Gray School of Medicine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, R.T., Aaronson, N.K. & Wilkin, D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2, 369–395 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422215

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422215

Key words

Search

Navigation